2019-20 Proposed rule changes

[Deleted]

I think player should not have any limit with cons, he goes 99 if he goes. Anyways these are minor additions and enough to help our activity.

[Deleted]

I have an idea that might fit in with some of these things, though I'm not entirely sure how to work it out.

The general premise would be a ceilings trade; so, for example, I have Mike Matheson (Defenseman) whose of/df ceilings are 80-99-80 115-135-89. He's 6'2", so it's a bit aggravating that his hitting ceiling is so low. What if we came up with a reward system that allowed GMs to make a trade - not an even one, but a trade nonetheless.

So, using Matheson again, maybe the trade is -15 for +10. I'd be able to balance him and have a better player by swapping 15 of his positioning for 10 hitting. Ceilings become 115-120-99. By having the - greater than the +, it's not going to screw up the entire league (and I'd think such trades would be limited to of/df ceilings), but it helps GMs adjust for the extremely random ceilings.


Teams that don't have GMs wouldn't suffer, because the reward comes with a drawback, but it also makes players more useful. Another example I have is Matt Buckles (C/RW). His ceilings are 72-93-111 150-88-113 (though he's 6'1"). He's got such a wild distribution between shooting and stickhandling, checking and positioning, that he will never be useful. What use is there for a player with 53-69-82 offense and 99-65-67 defense? If I were to spend 15 to gain 10, I could get him to 61-69-71 offense and/or 89-73-67 defense, which is at least a little bit more useful.


I have a bunch of these guys. Millen and Plews each have either 120 or 75 for shooting and playmaking, while Plews also has 124 for positioning alongside 60 for checking and hitting. Nolan Patrick has defense ceilings of 139-82-120.


Anyway, it just seemed to me a way to try and give rewards without wildly imbalancing the league or making it so that everyone has 80 overall players on the 4th line.

[lebas]

Nope i am completely against this. Ceillings shouldnt change everyone knows that certain ceillings dont matter much and can be overdevloped (or should know) swamping these for say hit is just gonna make this file 10 times stronger.... which i thought you were totally against.

[Deleted]

Yes we have file not too much strong hitters and that should not change.

[BluesGM]

I agree...don't mess with the ceilings

[atlantagm]

My first instinct as well; good thought Kevin but we want to avoid an overpowered file. One of the best things I like about the league is there are few stars and I want to keep it that way. I left a league (which has great management/ownership/GMs) because I personally thought the file was way too overpowered and I had 80 OV players on my 4th line. It felt cartoonish to me, although that's purely personal opinion and I know for certain that is a fantastic league.

I think perhaps we should evaluate the league and determine if the draft is meeting our needs. If we have many retiring players and we know who they are, what types of players they are, etc, its not unrealistic to think the draft should replenish those players at about an even rate. Everyone has complained this draft is garbage, but think about the NHL, not many players make it to begin with and the NHL currently has 7 rounds!

I absolutely love this file and would like to see it maintained as long as possible -- we should do some analysis on the file first and see where it is headed, and then adjust the only "input" to the file (read: the draft) as needed with POT/CON changes only. Just my $.02 and approaching it from a data perspective.

[lebas]

Honestly, increasing the amount of booms (add of pot and cons no ceiling changes) and also busts (keep it even) and adding the captain meetings will for one thing increase the value of picks and also eventually strengthen the file without altering it too much. I also noticed this draft was lacking boosters either cons or pot. Pot boosters to me aren't superstars or very rarely are but add another aspect to the game as they don't always boost so leave that little risk factor. Con boosters promote trading and boost activity, so win win.

I guess what I am trying to say is we don't have to re-invent the game to make it better.

[Deleted]

^ Fair enough all. I was thinking the increased cost aspect would help prevent it from creating that situation with 80ov 4th liners, but I'm certainly not about to fight over, twas just an idea.

[lebas]

Ideas are good not meaning to rain on your parade. You know the old saying there's no stupid ideas when brainstorming? Well this one really questions the logic... no I kid, I kid relax.

[Deleted]

I've long known that if I needed someone to call me an idiot, you'd be first in line Lebas

[lebas]

No ones calling names my friend. Trudeau teaches us that being completely incompentent pays off haha.

[Philly Pete]

i'm ok with whatever we decide... i might even be able to help input some of the rewards or try to keep track of the OPEN clubs milestones/meetings

[lebas]

I can also look after a gmless club

[atlantagm]

Jan 20, 2017 15:47:12 GMT SensGM said:

Jan 20, 2017 15:26:03 GMT @brett said:

#1 on my list is a bump in draft talent... looking through it's actually not a horrible draft, but not something anyone will ever rebuild a team through (evident by the 1st and 2nd ovr picks currently on the market). Might be as simple as inputting 30ish real prospects every year, would go a long way towards keeping the league relevant to the real NHL as well. Or would it make sense to just expand on Boom/Bust quantities?... simulating the real world and randomizing the heck out of teams trying to do a tank/rebuild.

#2 is reiterating the +con boosts for meetings, awards, activity, etc...

#3 is cash reward system, start simple, add one new item a year.

#4 as a longshot suggestion... and probably not a popular one, always liked the idea of a under 20 guy having a chance to grow one inch before the age of 20. Personally seen this idea abused in some leagues... but if regulated heavily... can't count the number of time's I have seen that 6"1 guy and thought dang, one inch from greatness.

Some nice ideas but I am against modifying the draft players beyond Stephen actually using version 1.15b to create the drafts.  The idea for this league was to have a league where players are actually rated as the game creators intended them to be. 

Gm's have all become accustomed to overrated players and think that is the norm.  Take a look at the RLHL....a very good league and I am not picking on them. However, to use them as an example of extremely overrated players is not as they are just doing something every league including the first iteration of this one has done.  To have a league where in order to win you have to have players on your fourth line be over 80 OA is not good.  What happened to the GHL the first time is because we had over rated players the amount of money they asked for increased to the point where the game could not handle it.  We could no longer sim ahead too far without a runtime error.  I tried doing a split off league with my son with the file and had to use the salary roll back tool twice to prevent the crashes.  Even that was a short term bandage because most players wanted 11 million to sign again and the finances went out of whack quickly.

The intention of this league was to use the game intended versions of ratings where players in their 60's OA are average, 70s are good players, 80s are the stars, and 90s rated are your superstars. These ratings actually allow GM's to have more then 1 or 2 useful players for call ups when injuries occur. 

Give the league time and it will level out to those ratings and building a team wont be impossible.  You have to adjust your player rating views for this file and you will be fine.
Brett - KingsGM Avatar

Dude, not sure how I missed this in the thread originally but this is so spot on its not even funny. This may be the best insight in the thread -- and has actually made me rethink how we should approach the draft.

If I recall the 1.15b software was used to load your game file before the rollover (where prospects are created for next draft), saved, and then moved back to our current version. This takes the newly generated draftpicks from 1.15b and then brings you back to the regular software to continue on. Now, I don't know if this actually works and/or if 1.15b makes changes that were not desired from the get-go, but is an interesting thought about approaching. I completely agree, RLHL is a great league but I left because fundamentally I disagree with how strong the file is. The 60-70-80-90 OV path you indicated is in line with how I would approach the league.

Perhaps all this in mind, maybe the league file is totally fine the way it is?

[lebas]

The simple con additions won't make a superfile. Adding Pot will, messing with ceillings will. Adding cons will only increase activity.